Reasonable -- I will often use small, infantry-only units to garrison key rear-area points, specifically to guard against paratrooper raids or surprise amphibious landings. There is a tremendous difference between having a tiny garrison and having no garrison at all in these circumstances.

Historical -- I've read many military histories that take as a matter-of-course the difference between well-equipped front-line troops and ill-trained and ill-equipped backline troops. Additionally, military formations come in many different sizes, and this system simply accounts for that.

Not that I disagree with the basic problem that you identify -- ultra-small units are ridiculous. 1 SMG controlling a hex is silly. But how often does that happen? I don't think this is a problem that requires a new game mechanic to solve. And, as Josh said, the other game mechanics do a good job discouraging this sort of thing. Beyond the PP cost of creating new divisions(?), a single SMG is not going to exert a strong ZOC on surrounding hexes. The ZoC mechanic in this game is something that I don't understand very well, but it's one that seems to make a very large difference in the ability of your troops to move in space adjacent to enemy units. (To Vic: I'd like to see an ATG College entry on this topic!)

On a related note, though, I would like enemy divisions that have NO units in them to be invisible to all other players. It's super gamey to put an empty vessel on a hex. Is it empty, or do I not have sufficient recon to see what's in there? More than once I've launched a long-odds battle against a mystery unit, only to find that the damned unit is completely empty.

Does seem gamey. But as history and the links posted here dummy units were often used. Quite often with success. Of course in a PBEM game house rules, where no empty units can be created, can apply.

Units on board ships, well this is a bit more difficult. Prior the Normandy Landings, the fear of information being leaked as the troops boarded their ships was quite large. The area around ports was sealed off. No information gaining was possible, thus information being passed on, by informants was null. Thus ships would have been sailing out of port but no information would have been gained as to what "cargo" was on each ship.

It would be nice of course to see what units are being transported, but I feel it's part of the fun awaiting an invasion. Not knowing if it is the real thing. Land units can be "spied" on by recon flights, cavalry units near the frontline.

Mat

_____________________________

"It is not enough to expect a man to pay for the best, you must also give him what he pays for." Alfred Dunhill

Currently there is no way to remove troops based on unit selection, only based on hex.

Also, ill push my idea of the following again

Rulevar do disable the mixing of different peoples in a unit. and an CheckUnitPeople [people] combined maybe with an ExecRemovetroops [unit] [people] [remove x%] [+remove 0-y%) and a Reduce readiness by people.

- Ability to have different HQ sprites depending on dominant people in a HQ. - Ability to have all different colours in action cards (like in people colour). Not only the 5 current ones. - Ability to have several different colours in a counter instead of just one. For example the counter could be divided into 9 fields. Topleft, topmiddle, topright,centerleft, centemiddle, centerright, bottomleft, bottommiddle & bottomright. And each field could have a different colour. So that counters can have bands and different patterns. - A shortcommand to place predefined units on the map directly from the main editor screen. - The airwar got some new rules that made the megastack tactic less usefull. I think it would be good to have the possibility to discourage the same megastack tactic when it comes to navies. Maybe stackvalues, maybe Uboats have an easier time finding targets. It just seems that many naval wars degenerate into who has the biggest megastack.

Forgot a couple of other things i was thinking about. Might have to return to this.

Custom template system for units so i can create a unit template be it a armor division,infantry division etc like on hearts of iron 3 and then build from that template without having to create the same unit again and again which gets to your head when you dealing with 10-20 units at a time.

In "location type", it would be nice to put a maximum distance. For example, I want a building can not be built at over 5 hexagons of my capital or any building.

Another way to let players build buildings is through using action cards. Using an action card you can finetune on a hex-to-hex basis on which hexes a location can be build by the player. The only downside of this method is that it is no longer possible to link engineers spending EP points to construction of location.

- Ability to have different HQ sprites depending on dominant people in a HQ. - Ability to have all different colours in action cards (like in people colour). Not only the 5 current ones. - Ability to have several different colours in a counter instead of just one. For example the counter could be divided into 9 fields. Topleft, topmiddle, topright,centerleft, centemiddle, centerright, bottomleft, bottommiddle & bottomright. And each field could have a different colour. So that counters can have bands and different patterns. - A shortcommand to place predefined units on the map directly from the main editor screen. - The airwar got some new rules that made the megastack tactic less usefull. I think it would be good to have the possibility to discourage the same megastack tactic when it comes to navies. Maybe stackvalues, maybe Uboats have an easier time finding targets. It just seems that many naval wars degenerate into who has the biggest megastack.

Forgot a couple of other things i was thinking about. Might have to return to this.

Adding another couple of wishes

- A capability to make different types of bridges in the editor. - A capability to have different fonts and font sizes for text on the map and other places in the editor. - In the map when you select a hex there is nothing except the graphics to indicate wether there is any roads in the hex or rivers bordering it. I think there should be some text to indicate this, maybe similar to in TOAWIII.

- Ability to have different HQ sprites depending on dominant people in a HQ. - Ability to have all different colours in action cards (like in people colour). Not only the 5 current ones. - Ability to have several different colours in a counter instead of just one. For example the counter could be divided into 9 fields. Topleft, topmiddle, topright,centerleft, centemiddle, centerright, bottomleft, bottommiddle & bottomright. And each field could have a different colour. So that counters can have bands and different patterns. - A shortcommand to place predefined units on the map directly from the main editor screen. - The airwar got some new rules that made the megastack tactic less usefull. I think it would be good to have the possibility to discourage the same megastack tactic when it comes to navies. Maybe stackvalues, maybe Uboats have an easier time finding targets. It just seems that many naval wars degenerate into who has the biggest megastack.

There are a few items I'd love to see added to the Wish List, that would help making more Grognard style scenerios...

1) Allow HQ's to be air transported/paradroped if they have all the correct SFT types to make it happen. Currently it seems hard coded that you can't airlift/para drop HQ's even if all the SFT's in them are of types allowed to Air Lift/Para Drop. So you have to drop the staff in a regular formation and then make an HQ out of it on the ground and then assign subordinate units to the HQ (with readiness loss). Would be great for scenerio's that dealt with significant airborne ops to allow the HQ's to be droped if all the SFT's in them were capable of it.

2) Seperate attack types for Air Assaults and Amphib Landings. Currently Air Assaults and Amphib Landings are modeled as regular ground attacks with a negative modifier. Would be great if these were modeled as seperate attack types. That way you could vary an SFT attack abilities individualy depending upon the type of attak it was making. That could solve a couple interesting issues...like allowing for individual SFT's (marines) that had better Amphib attack ratings then similar SFT's (infantry) that didn't have that specialized training. It could also do things like making Coastal Fortifications that were difficult to take by amphib attack but easy to take by regular ground attack or fortifications who's primary defenses could be bypassed by vertical envelopment (e.g. Eben Emmael).

3) For Multi-Role Aircraft (e.g. Fighter-Bombers) have a toggle button to specify whether they were armed for ground/sea attack role or air-superiority/escort role on a particular mission and allow for different combat values based upon the role selected. Historicaly, alot of aircraft had very different combat capabilities based upon thier load-out. Even if a plane like a P51 or P47 on an escort mission were given a green light to attack ground targets, it wasn't going to be nearly as effective if it didn't have it's bombs or air to surface rockets mounted...which it wouldn't if expecting to dogfight. In game terms it would mean players wouldn't get full ground attack effectiveness from fighters assigned to escort/air-superiority missions. Currently you would either have to make seperate SFT's to represent each role...or if you allow Fighters decent ground attack capabilities when they don't encounter significant air resistance they get the full benefit of thier ground attack capabilities against enemy forces. Having different role types would make something like putting up some interceptors on defence even if you knew you were heavly outnumbered still have some value...as the attacker would be forced to have at least some fighters on escort mission where their ground attack capabilities could be significantly less. As it is, there is not much point in putting up interceptors if you are outnumbered in the air...as the enemy will clear/kill your interceptors and still likely get his full capabilties against your ground units.

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet. But i would like the ability to drop the map choice in random games and have it re shuffle, without going thru the whole setup again, until you get a map you like. Like a accept map or reshuffle map button.

_____________________________

Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must. ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

*I'm in the Wargamer middle ground* I don't buy all the wargames I want, I just buy more than I need.

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet. But i would like the ability to drop the map choice in random games and have it re shuffle, without going thru the whole setup again, until you get a map you like. Like a accept map or reshuffle map button.

+1

At least it remembers my game setups usually

But a button to simply re-roll another map without having to go back through all the menus would be awesome

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet. But i would like the ability to drop the map choice in random games and have it re shuffle, without going thru the whole setup again, until you get a map you like. Like a accept map or reshuffle map button.

+1

At least it remembers my game setups usually

But a button to simply re-roll another map without having to go back through all the menus would be awesome

+1 again! This seems like a no-brainer addition. Trying to find a map which has a good sea-based setup is tedious when you have to go through all the menus. Please add in next patch. thanks.

I love the random games, and it would be very nice if you could set up the game so that different random AI nations and your human nation are allied together from the start. This would make a randomized WWII sort of set up. Maybe you could have 2-3 alliance factions and some neutrals. This would add a strategic dimension, because now you are not only responsible for keeping yourself alive, but you should make sure your AI allies are not getting crushed as well. Neutrals would stay neutral unless attacked. Victory points would only take the number of enemy faction cities into account.

Game setup could include the following choices (with the number of factions/neutrals allowable only if enough nations are picked in the game... If the player chooses to have a game with just two nations, obviously Faction Alliance setup questions would be grayed out):

Yeah, I play a game and I don't know/remember what's the weather setting. Next wish is more even maps. Now small 2 player maps (or medium with wild land) has sometimes 9 cities (without the capitals) and one player has 1 city advantage. On small map it is very unbalanced. 13.3% if I calculate correctly.